Articles Posted inTexas

On June 15, 2017 the Governor signed a bill into law that will significantly change eligibility for “Orders of Non Disclosure,” to allow people who have been convicted of Driving While Intoxicated to obtain such an Order. An “Order of Non Disclosure” is a Court Order to any agency in possession of your criminal history record information to seal the record and not disclose it to third parties. In other words, an Order of Non Disclosure allows one to shield the fact of their case from public view and scrutiny. An Order of Non Disclosure prevents the general public from viewing your criminal history. This is helpful in a number of ways, for example an Order of Non Disclosure would prevent prospective employers from viewing your record. This would also apply to apartment complexes that are considering renting you an apartment, etc. The are exceptions to the Non Disclosure order in terms of who may access the record, but it is a fantastic tool to prevent the general public from ever knowing that you have a previous criminal case.

Until now, people convicted of Driving While Intoxicated in Collin County, Texas (or anywhere in Texas for that matter) were prohibited by law from obtaining a Non Disclosure Order. That is about to change. Effective September 1, 2017 people convicted of Driving While Intoxicated will be able to obtain an Order of Non Disclosure even if convicted of DWI. The following conditions must be met in order to qualify.

The Driving While Intoxicated Conviction you seek to Nondisclose must be a first offense.

This week the United States Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on free speech and the First Amendment. In an 8-0 ruling ,the Court held that a North Carolina law preventing registered sex offenders from accessing the internet, for the purpose of engaging with social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter impermissibly restricted free speech in violation of the first amendment. The case, known as Packingham v. North Carolina came about when Mr. Packingham, a registered sex offender, logged on to Facebook and wrote a post expressing gratitude for the dismissal of a traffic citation.

For this he was indicted under the North Carolina law which makes it a felony for a registered sex offender “to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages.” Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court and he stressed the importance of social media in present day society as the place where we now discuss religion and politics, search for employment, chat with friends and even scheduled events. Referring to social media as the “modern public square” the Court held that the North Carolina law was not consistent with the Constitutional guarantee of free speech.

How might this impact Texas? While Texas criminal statutes do not prohibit a registered sex offender from accessing the internet, state parole laws most certainly do and the prohibitions are fairly stringent. In addition, a no internet access condition is sometimes imposed by agreement or by the Court in situations where a registered sex offender is being placed on community supervision. Though the Texas laws were not directly at issue in Packingham, the Court’s robust interpretation of free speech in this context does call into question the continuing validity of broad laws that prohibit registered sex offenders from generally accessing social media.

We are often asked questions about conditions that people may be asked to complete if they are placed on community supervision. Below are listed some of the most common, with details provided. Each case is unique and conditions that may be appropriate in one case are completely inappropriate in another.

Most people have a general understanding that they have a Constitutional right to a “speedy trial.” What does that really mean, and how can it be utilized to help someone charged with a criminal case? Both the U.S. and Texas constitutions provide a speedy trial right. Meaning that the Government, whether that be the State of Texas or the Federal Government, must afford you a trial within a certain period of time or your right to a speedy trial has been violated. If your constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the law requires that the case against you be dismissed.

As you see, the violation of your right to a speedy trial is a serious matter that my lead to the dismissal of charges against you. When the Court is considering whether your right to a speedy trial has been violated, the Court considers 1) the length of the delay, 2) the reason of the delay 3) the assertion of the right to speedy trial and 4) the “prejudice” that you may have suffered as a result of the delay. The four factors I list all must be considered.

Courts have found delay to be “presumptively prejudicial” as it approaches one year. If your case has been pending for a year or more, that level of delay could be considered prejudicial to your speedy trial right. The second factor is the reason for the delay. If the reason for the delay is that the state was not diligent, that weighs in your favor. If the reason for the delay is that you took steps to delay resolution of the case, that weighs against you. The third factor, ” assertion of the right” means that you must actively make the court aware of the delay and demand speedy trial. The fourth factor deals with the prejudice you may have suffered. “Prejudice” can take many forms, even sometimes just anxiety and concern on the part of the accused. Prejudice does not necessarily require that you suffer some sort of impairment to your defense. Though prejudice may involve some apparent impairment of the defense, the law is clear that prejudice may involve only anxiety and concern, or expense or impairment of employment prospects.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that may significantly impact the way that Federal drug prosecutions are carried out in Texas. On October 15, 2015 the Court decided United States v. Haines, No. 13-31287, 2015 WL 6080523. The Haines Court held that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that a jury make a defendant specific finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the drug quantity to each individual defendant to establish the statutory minimum sentence.

Under the law as it existed prior to Haines, the only question for the jury to decide concerning drug quantity was the amount involved in the overall scope of the conspiracy. The question of the amount applicable as to each individual defendant was a sentencing question for the Court on a lower standard of proof. In the post Haines world, if the Government seeks to convict someone of federal conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute drugs in an amount that carries enhanced statutory minimum sentences, the Government must prove that the individual person involved is personally responsible for an amount of drugs that triggers the statutory enhancement. For example, under 21 United States Code section 841(b)(1)(A), a conspiracy involving 5 kilograms or more of a cocaine mixture subjects a person to a mandatory statutory minimum of ten years imprisonment.

Prior to Haines, to subject someone to that mandatory minimum sentence, all the Government would need to prove is that they were guilty of a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute, and the the overall scope of the conspiracy involved 5 kilograms or more. Now, to subject someone to that mandatory minimum, they must proved not only guilt as the the conspiracy, but also that the individual person is personally responsible for an amount sufficient to trigger the enhanced minimum penalty.

The state’s highest criminal court recently held a portion of the Texas “Improper Photography” statute unconstitutional. The Court struck down the section of that law that prohibited visually recording or taking a photograph of another without the subject’s consent, and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

On September 17, 2014 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals announced its decision in the case of Ex Parte Ronald Thompson. In Thompson, The Court held by an 8-1 majority that the taking of photographs and visual recordings of another without their consent is expressive conduct implicating the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and therefore beyond the authority of the Government to regulate. This opinion specifically invalidates section 21.15(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code. The First Amendment protections serve to invalidate the law even though, the Court said, the act of taking a photograph or visually recording another without consent was only criminalized under 21.15(b)(1) where the actor’s intent in making the recording or taking the photograph was done so with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. As stated by the Court in this case:

In the practice of law, I am asked questions on Expunctions and Non Disclosures on an almost daily basis. Many people are confused by the two. An Expunction Order and an Order of Non Disclosure are two very different legal remedies, with different eligibility requirements.

Though this article cannot be a comprehensive legal guide, I want to explain the basic differences between Expunctions and Non Disclsoure.

A conviction for even misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Texas carries with it several consequences of which you may be unaware. The hidden consequences will be found nowhere in a plea agreement or judgment of conviction, but may nevertheless affect your life negatively.

1. Federal Student Loan Aid

Congress established law, codified at 20 U.S.C. section 1091that prohibits students convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance, from receiving any grant, loan, or work assistance for:

When a police officer arrests a person in Collin County, Texas for Driving While Intoxicated, the officer may seek a search warrant from a judge if the person refuses to provide a sample voluntarily.

When the officer applies to the Judge for the search warrant authorizing him or her to draw a person’s blood, the officer must prepare an affidavit of the facts that the officer believes will show that probable cause exists that evidence of a crime (Driving While Intoxicated) will be found in the body of the person under arrest. That evidence usually takes the form of a quantity of alcohol in the blood of the person. Because the act of securing a search warrant to take suspected evidence from a location in which the suspect has an expectation of privacy is a serious and solemn matter, the law imposes a requirement that the police officer seeking the warrant present a “sworn affidavit” to the judge in support of the search warrant. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 18.01(b) The requirement of preparing an affidavit and swearing to the truth of it’s contents impress upon the officer the serious nature of the matter at hand.

The issue of whether section 18.01(b) requires a police officer to personally appear before the judge to swear out and oath, or whether the officer may simply swear to the truth of his or her affidavit over the phone, is an issue that has been debated by lawyers and judges quite a bit over the last few years. Until recently, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has never weighed in to settle the question. Finally, in January of 2013, the Court decided the case of Clay v. State of Texas.

In Clay the Court succinctly ruled that section 18.01(b) does not necessarily require an officer to be in the personal presence of the judge from whom they seek the search warrant. Swearing over the phone may be ok so long as “sufficient care is taken in the individual case to preserve the same

Who is Erdman, and why should you care? Erdman is a case decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nearly two decades ago and has been the law of the land in Texas for that period of time.

The Erdman case established that police officers who have arrested a Driving While Intoxicated suspect may not provide so called ” extra statutory” information concerning the consequences of refusal to submit to a breath test. In plain terms, The Erdman court explained that police are required by law to inform suspects about the legal consequences of refusal – nothing more and nothing less.